New Insights Into Seis Stratigraph

8/13/2019 New Insights Into Seis Stratigraph

1/17

New insights into seismic stratigraphy of shallow-waterprogradational sequences: Subseismic clinoforms

Hongliu Zeng1, Xiaomin Zhu2, and Rukai Zhu3

Abstract

Seismic clinoforms are the key building blocks for constructing the seismic stratigraphy of progradational

depositional sequences. However, not all progradational systems are necessarily represented by seismic clino-

forms. We evaluated the definition and interpretation of progradational systems that do not associate with seis-

mic clinoforms. Nonclinoform (or subseismic clinoforms) seismic facies are mainly related to shallow-water

deltas where the thickness of a prograding clinoform complex is too thin to be imaged as an offlapping reflection

configuration. The clinoform detection limit for clinoform imaging is defined as one wavelength (the thickness

of two seismic events) and is related to the predominant frequency of the seismic data and the velocity of

the sediments. Three examples from the Songliao Basin of China and Gulf of Mexico illustrated ancient

shallow-water deltas with various morphologies in lacustrine and marine environments by integrating the analy-

sis of the core, wireline logs, and amplitude stratal slices made from nonclinoform seismic events. A seismic

model of an outcrop carbonate clinoform complex in west Texas further demonstrated the seismic frequency

control on clinoform seismic stratigraphy, including transitions between different types of clinoforms and

between clinoforms and nonclinoform seismic facies. Ambiguity in interpreting nonclinoform seismic

facies can be reduced by high-resolution acquisition, high-frequency enhancement processing, and seismic

sedimentology.

IntroductionThe term clinoform is proposed by Rich (1951) to

depict the shape of a depositional surface at the scale

of the entire continental margin (Figure1). A clinoform

results from the varying rate of deposition and waterdepth, its upper end connecting to a flat, shallow-

water undaform and its lower end graduating into a

horizontal, deep-water fondoform. Multiple clinoformal

depositional units compose a unique, easy-to-recognize

stratigraphic pattern in the continental margin.Mitchum et al. (1977) adapt the term and use it to

characterize a group of very special seismic reflections

that are typically composed of topset, foreset, and bot-

tomset (roughly corresponding to undaform, clinoform,

and fondoform of Rich [1951], respectively). A clino-

form was interpreted as strata in which significant dep-

osition is produced by lateral outbuilding or basinward

prograding, forming the gently sloping depositional sur-faces (clinoforms). Although seismic clinoforms can re-

sult from any prograding depositional process, they are

generally produced by deltas that prograded seaward

(Sangree and Widmier, 1977). Berg (1982) further estab-

lishes a relationship between some different deltaic

facies and distinctive clinoform seismic facies. Seismic

clinoform patterns are also common in ramp, bank,

and platform carbonate depositional systems (e.g.,Belopolsky and Droxler, 2004;Droste and Steenwinkel,

2004;Eberli et al., 2004;Isern et al., 2004).Widely recognized as among the most common

depositional stratal patterns, clinoforms are one of the

fundamental building blocks of seismic- and sequence-

stratigraphic models (e.g., Mitchum et al., 1977;

Vail et al., 1977; Van Wagoner et al., 1988). However,

most documented seismic clinoforms are related to large

shelf-edge deltas developed in margins of deep-water ba-

sins where a clinoform may have significant (high tens to

hundreds of meters) accommodation and therefore be

readily apparent. In other environments, those having

shallow water depth and less accommodation, the clino-forms are thinner and more difficult to identify using

seismic data. Prograding deltaic systems developed in

shallow-water environments, such as along the coast

1The University of Texas at Austin, Jackson School of Geosciences, Bureau of Economic Geology, Austin, Texas, USA. E-mail: hongliu.zeng@beg

.utexas.edu.2China University of Petroleum, Beijing, China. E-mail: [email protected] Institute of Petroleum Exploration and Development, PetroChina, Beijing, China. E-mail: [email protected].

Manuscript received by the Editor 25 February 2013; published online 6 August 2013. This paper appears in I NTERPRETATION, Vol. 1, No. 1

(August 2013); p. SA35SA51, 18 FIGS., 1 TABLE.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/INT-2013-0017.1. 2013 Society of Exploration Geophysicists and American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.

tSpecial section: Interpreting stratigraphy from geophysical data

Interpretation / August 2013 SA35


2/17

in shallow-marine on-shelf, intracratonic basins, and inpostrift continental basins, are especially hard to recog-nize using seismic data. In these areas, where sedimentsare only several meters to low tens of meters thick, seis-mic clinoform patterns are commonly poorly imaged. Asa result, these clinoforms have received much less atten-tion from seismic interpreters. In fact, except for somemoderately thin sequences that can be recognized as

shingled clinoform complexes (Mitchum et al., 1977),

many thin deltaic sequences have probably been mistak-enly interpreted as other facies because they lack dis-tinctive seismic clinoforms. In this study, we defineseismic nonclinoforms (or subseismic clinoforms) asseismic events produced by prograding depositional se-quences that cannot be recognized visually as seismicclinoforms.

The purpose of this study is to discuss and interpretthin deltas and prograding depositional systems belowseismic detection power. Geologic and seismic indica-tions of deltaic systems are discussed. The limits of

using clinoform seismic facies to characterize deltaicsystems are pointed out. Specific examples of subsur-

face delta sequences without clinoform geometry onseismic sections are described and evaluated. Seismicresolution control on imaging of clinoform seismic ar-chitecture is investigated. Seismic techniques that canbe used to detect nonclinoform sequences are outlined.

In this paper, carbonate progradational systemsare discussed to a lesser degree. Although lithologyand depositional processes in carbonate depositionalsequences are different from those in clastic systems,links between clinoformal surfaces and depositionalrate/water depth are similar, which leads to similarimpedance architecture and comparable seismic facies.Therefore, our observations in deltas could safely be

applied to carbonate systems, and vice versa.

Indication of deltaic systemsDeltaic systems show a wide complexity in the geo-

logic record. Many of these systems can be interpretedin seismic data in certain situations. An understandingof the geologic conditions of delta sequence develop-ment is essential to predict their seismic responses.Following is a brief description of various deltaic sys-tems and how they relate to seismic interpretability.

Deltas in modern and geologic recordGalloway (1975) defines a delta as a contiguous

mass of sediment, partly subaerial, deposited around

the point where a stream enters a standing body of

water.Galloway (1975)also classifies deltas into three

basic types, or end members, on the basis of the energy

source that dominates the deltaic building process:

fluvial-dominated delta, wave-dominated delta, and

tide-dominated delta. These basic delta types are char-

acterized by significantly different landform geometry(Figure 2). Fluvial-dominated deltas are elongate to

lobate in shape, whereas wave- and tide-dominated del-

tas are arcuate and funnel shaped, respectively. Facies

patterns associated with each delta type are also differ-

ent. Adding to the complexity, although a deltaic system

may be controlled by one of the energy sources, other

energy sources are usually also active to some degree,

leading to mixed geometry and facies patterns among

the end members.Postma (1990) further classifies fluvial-dominated

deltaic systems on the basis of water depth in the re-

ceiving basin. Shallow-water deltas are developed in

water depths of low tens of meters, which would in-

clude on-shelf, or shelf-type, deltas (Ethridge and

Wescott, 1984) in marine basins and lacustrine and

other deltas related to other shelves. Shallow-water del-

tas are normally represented by three physiographic

zones delta plain, delta front, and prodelta

similar to those in standard models of fluvial-dominated

deltas (e.g., Galloway and Hobday, 1983). The slope

near the river mouth and the delta-front can be gentle

(shoal-water type) or steep (Gilbert-type), depending

on the channel depth versus the basin depth. The

QAe1675

Undathem

Clinothem

Basement

Undaform ClinoformLand

Fondothem

Fondoform

Depth ofwave base

Seasurface

Figure 1. Diagram showing the original concept of the clino-form defined by Rich (1951).

Fluvial dominated

Tide dominated

Wave dominated

Tidal

Lafourche(Mississippi)

Lobate

Elongate

Rhone River

ModernMississippi

Gulf of Papua

0 10 mi

QAe1676

Current

0 10 mi

0 10 mi

0 10 mi

Figure 2. Modern examples of three basic types of deltas(modified fromFisher et al., 1969).

SA36 Interpretation / August 2013


3/17

general stratigraphic architecture of a fluvial-dominated shallow-water delta is summarized inFigure 3a. In the dip (basinward) profile, individual

delta lobes that formed in outbuilding deltaic episodescompose a clinoform complex, with sandy sedimentsmostly accumulated in the upper portion of the com-

plex (topsets and upper foresets). The combinationof the sandy sediments forms a lithostratigraphic unit

having a relatively smooth top and probably an uneven

base. In the strike section, multiple delta lobes formedat different times and accumulated as irregular-shaped

mounds, rarely showing parallel internal stratal beddingin seismic sections.

According to Postma (1990), deep-water deltas occurin water depths deeper than tens of meters to hundredsof meters and include shelf-edge deltas, slope-typedeltas (Ethridge and Wescott, 1984), and other systemsnot necessarily related to true shelf breaks (e.g., in afault-controlled deep lake). The biggest difference be-tween deep-water deltas and shallow-water deltas isthat in addition to the three physiographic zones

found in shallow-water deltas, deep-water deltas also

extend to a suspension settling and gravity-driven masstransport zone and a deep-water turbidite zone beyondthe normal prodelta zone on the long, inclined, muddybasin floor (Figure 3b). Sands in this system wouldbe preferentially distributed at the top (delta-plainand delta-front sands) and base (turbidites), separatedby thick muddy sediments (prodelta and deep-water

mudstones). Internal stratal bedding is relatively

smooth and easy to correlate in dip and strike sections.

Shallow-water deltaic sedimentation is a common

process in modern environments. Examples include

Lena and Volga deltas in marine basins (Olariu and

Bhattacharya, 2006) and Wax Lake, Atchafalaya (Olariu

and Bhattacharya, 2006), and Poyang Lake deltas

a) Sigmoid

b) Oblique

c) Complex sigmoid-oblique

d) Shingled

QAe1679

Figure 4. Reflection configurations of fluvial- and wave-dominated deltas (modified from Mitchum et al. [1977];initially interpreted by Mitchum et al. [1977] and Sangreeand Widmier [1977] and reinterpreted byBerg [1982]).

25Hz

100Hz

50Hz

60Hz

30Hz

40Hz

Velocity (m/s)

Recognizableprogradingseq.

(m)

80Hz

4000 000600050002 3000

20

0

40

60

80

100

120

140

20

0

40

60

80

100

120

140

Recognizablep

rogradingseq.

(Two-waytime,ms)

20Hz

Clastics

Carbonates

200Hz

QAe1680

Figure 5. Hmin in time and depth as a function of the pre-dominant frequency of the seismic data and the velocity of

prograding sediments.

Shallow-water delta

Deep-water delta

Dip section

Strike section

Meters to low tens of meters

High tens to hundreds of meters

1

5

4

32

1

32

Sandstone Shale

QAe1678

a)

b)

Figure 3. Models of fluvial-dominated deltas illustratingtheir internal clinoform framework and gross sand distribu-tion patterns: (a) Shallow-water delta; (b) deep-waterdelta; 1 delta plain, 2 delta front, 3 prodelta, 4 suspension settling and gravity-driven mass transport zone,and 5 = deep-water turbidite zone.



4/17

(Zou et al., 2008) in lacustrine basins. Several authors

investigate many ancient subsurface examples of shal-

low-water deltas deposited in shallow intracratonic sea-

ways (e.g., Busch, 1959, 1971; Cleaves and Broussard,

1980;Rasmussen et al., 1985;Bhattacharya and Walker,

1991;Li et al., 2011;Olariu et al., 2012) and in lacustrine

basins (e.g., Cretaceous Songliao Basin,Lou et al., 1999;

Triassic Ordos Basin,Zou et al., 2008). However, com-

pared with the large number of investigations of deep-

water deltas or deltas at the shelf edge (e.g., Carvajal

and Steel, 2009;Covault et al., 2009;Dixon et al., 2012),

the number of shallow-water deltas described in an-

cient deposits is very limited.

Deltas represented by clinoform seismic faciesMitchum et al. (1977) promote the use of external

shape and internal configuration on

seismic profiles to interpret stratalconfiguration, facies patterns, and depo-

sitional environments of prograding

stratigraphic sequences. In particular,

their recognition of sigmoid, oblique,

complex, and shingled clinoform seismic

facies (Figure 4) and the general geologic

interpretation of these facies establishes

a foundation for stratigraphic evaluation

of seismic clinoforms. A sigmoid clino-

form pattern (Figure4a) refers to a rela-

tively low-energy sedimentary regime;

an oblique facies (Figure4b) would oc-cur in a relatively high-energy sedimen-

tary regime. A complex sigmoid-oblique

model (Figure4c) results from alternat-

ing high- and low-energy sedimentary

regimes. Whereas these three types of

clinoforms are associated with deep-

water basins, a shingled clinoform

configuration (Figure4d) represents depositional units

prograding into shallow waters.

Berg (1982) further links different clinoform con-

figurations to some distinctive delta types. The sig-

moid, oblique, and complex sigmoid-oblique patterns

(Figure 4a4c) are representative seismic facies of adeep-water fluvial-dominated delta. The sigmoid seismic

pattern is composed of continuous and S-shaped

clinoforms (Figure4a). Without toplapping, sigmoid pat-

terns usually occur in low-energy, delta interlobe areas

lacking sandy deposits. The oblique pattern (Figure4b)

is characterized by clinoforms that terminate updip by

toplap and downdip by downlap that bound the deltaic

sequence. This pattern represents a high-energy delta

where the sand-rich delta plain is coincident with the

upper horizontal events (undaform). The seismic clino-

form is equivalent to shale-prone prodelta facies. The ab-

sence of stacking of horizontal events in the delta plain

suggests sediment bypassing on a stable shelf. The com-plex sigmoid-oblique pattern (Figure 4c) is a result of

alternate high-energy sandy deposition (oblique) and

low-energy shaly deposition (sigmoid) that occurred in

delta-lobe shifting during delta system outbuilding.

The shingled pattern (Figure 4d) appears to indicate a

wave-dominated delta in shallow water. Development

of a wave-dominated delta seems to require a stable shal-

low depositional shelf. Less studied and documented,

tide-dominated deltas are difficult to identify using sim-

ple seismic clinoform patterns.

Table 1. Hmin in meters as a function of the predominant frequency ofthe seismic data and the velocity of prograding sediments. Typicalindustry data are characterized by a predominant frequency from 20 to50 Hz.

f(Hz) V 2000ms

V 3000ms

V 4000ms

V 5000ms

V 6000ms

20 50.0 75.0 100.0 125.0 150.0

25 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0

30 33.3 50.0 66.7 83.3 100.0

40 25.0 37.5 50.0 62.5 75.0

50 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

60 16.7 25.0 33.3 41.7 50.0

80 12.5 18.7 25.0 31.2 37.5

100 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

200 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0

0 1200 km

BEIJING

Peoples Republicof China

0 500 km

48

46

44

50126 128 130

124122

Qiqihar

Harbin

Changchun

DaqingOilfieldStudy

area

Songliao

Basin

QAe1681

N

Figure 6. Cretaceous Songliao Basin of China showing thestudy area in the Qijia Depression near the Daqing Oilfield.



5/17

Limits of clinoform seismic faciesBarring any data quality issues related to acquisition

and processing, our ability to use clinoform seismic

stratigraphy to recognize progradational depositional

sequences is largely limited by seismic resolution.To visually identify a clinoform pattern within a seis-

mic stratigraphic mapping unit, one has to recognize at

least two seismic events with one offlapping the other.

In other words, the unit has to be at least as thick as the

width of two seismic events (one wavelength or cycle)in two-way traveltime. We call the thickness of such a

seismic stratigraphic mapping unit clinoform detection

limit:

Hmin 1000f ; (1)

wherefdenotes the predominant frequency of the seis-

mic data in hertz (Hz) and Hmin is the clinoform detec-

tion limit in milliseconds (ms). The clinoform detection

limit in depth is related to the predominant frequency of

the seismic data and the velocity of the prograding sedi-

ments (Figure5, Table1):

Hmin V2f ; (2)

where Vdenotes velocity of the sediments in meters persecond (ms) andHmin is the clinoform detection limit

in meters (m). Most modern seismic data sets are char-acterized by a predominant frequency ranging from

20 to 100 Hz, corresponding to Hmin (in time) from

10 to 50 ms. In a typical clastic basin, the velocity of

sandstones and shales is usually between 2000 and

4000 ms, resulting in a Hmin (in depth) of 10 to100 m; in a carbonate formation, rock velocity is signifi-

cantly higher (mostly 5000 6000 ms) and Hmin (indepth) increases sizably (25150 m).

These simple calculations reveal that seismic clino-

form recognition is reserved to thicker prograding

AA

G21

G42

G41

G32

G31

G22

G12

SQ1SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

SQ2

SQ3

G11Tra

veltime(ms)

T1

T2

a)Basinward

2 kmkm

b)

SQ1

SQ2

SQ3

T1

T2

Relativegeologictime

a

b

c

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

G21

G42

G41

G32

G31

G22

G12

G11

Third-orderseq. boundary

SP DT High-ordersequence

Fault

fifth fourth third

fifth fourth third

- +

Amplitude

A

A

BB

QAe1682

2 km

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

Figure 7. A dip well-seismic section illustrat-ing the high-frequency depositional sequenceframework and internal nonclinoform reflec-tion pattern in the Cretaceous Qijia Depres-sion (modified from Zeng et al., 2012). SeeFigure 7a for position. (a) Traveltime sectionshowing wireline logs, sequence definition,and well-seismic correlation. (b) Wheeler-transformed section flattened in relativegeologic time for easy viewing of internalreflection characteristics. Positions of stratalslices in Figure 10 are labeled a, b, and c. SP spontaneous potential log; DT = sonic log.



6/17

depositional sequences or the thicker part of a prograd-

ing depositional sequence. Sequences thinner thanHminnormally do not show as clinoforms on seismic profiles.

Depending on the current status of seismic data quality

in basins around the world, a large number of shallow-

water deltas would fall below Hmin because they devel-

oped in water depths shallower than tens of meters.

These shallow-water deltas are good candidates to bereflected as nonclinoform seismic patterns. Accord-ingly, the interpretation of deltas needs to go beyondthe recognition of seismic clinoforms. Lacking visibleclinoforms, shallow-water deltas would routinely gounrecognized by seismic interpreters. Seismic faciesof those nonclinoform sequences are our major concernin following sections.

Examples of seismic nonclinoform deltasIn this section, three investigations are presented

as examples of seismic nonclinoform deltas. Withoutvisible seismic clinoforms, seismic geomorphologypatterns on amplitude stratal slices provide vital infor-mation for interpreting thin deltaic systems. The pro-duction of stratal slices has followed the procedurediscussed in Zeng et al. (1998a, 1998b). Where available,conventional cores and wireline logs have been used tocalibrate the interpretations in these studies.

Qijia depression, Songliao Basin, China

The Songliao Basin of China is a large-scaleMesozoic-Cenozoic lacustrine basin covering an areaof more than 250,000 km2 (Figure6). In lower throughupper Cretaceous strata, postrift deposits as thick as3000 to 4000 m unconformably overlie synrift strataand extend beyond the fault blocks to cover the wholebasin (Feng et al., 2010). Lacking true shelf breaks, seis-mic clinoforms can be seen only along major delta axeswhere fluvial systems transported abundant sedimentto the deep part of the lake in the center of the basin

B B

+-

Amplitude2 km

50ms

5ms

QAe1683

50ms

a

b

c

Figure 8. Strike seismic section showing the internal reflec-tion pattern in the Cretaceous Qijia Depression. The expectedmounded seismic configuration for a normaldeltaic system(Figure 3b) does not exist. The regional structural trend is cor-rected for a better view of internal reflection characteristics.Positions of stratal slices in Figure10 are labeled a, b, and c.See Figure7a for position.

QAe1684

10m

Deltafront

Shallow

lake

Depth(m)

Limestone

Shale

Sandstone

sotohperoCseicafbuSnoitcesderoC

GR DT

a)

b)

c)

2121

2122

2123

2124

2125

2126

2127

2128

2129

2130

2131

2132

2120

2133

a)

b)

c)

Figure 9. Description of a cored section in awell in the Qijia Depression showing Creta-ceous fluvial-dominated shallow-water deltadeposits. Arrows denote upward-coarseninggrain-size trends. (a) Shallow-lake Ostracodalimestone; (b) trough-cross-stratified (arrow),fine-grained distributary-channel sandstone;(c) medium-grained, blocky sandstone withshale lag (arrow) on the scoured distributary-channel base. Cores are oriented up (shal-lower) to the left.



7/17


8/17

to reveal any seismic reflection configuration that

resembles the mound geometry associated with typical

prograding delta clinoforms (Figure3b).

Lithology, grain-size trend, and sedimentary struc-

ture were observed in conventional cores, providing

more direct evidence for classifying depositional facies.

By describing more than 1300 m of core in 11 wells in

the area, we recognized that most subfacies in the core

are related to fluvial-dominated deltaic deposition. For

example, in a long cored section (Figure 9), a typicalfacies cycle (from bottom to top) includes gray shale

and thin limestone (Figure 9a) representing shallow-

lake deposition, trough-cross-stratified, fine-grained

sandstone (Figure 9b) from the distributary channel,

and medium-grained, blocky sandstone with shale-clast

lag (Figure 9c) on the scoured distributary-channel

base in the delta front. There are abundant ostracod

fossils (e.g., Cypridea, Candona, Mongolocypris, and

Ziziphocypris) identified in the limestones and

shales, all indicative of a shallow-water environment.

Ranging from 4- to 15-m thick, the upward-coarsening

sequences are a result of progradational processes ina shallow-water deltaic system (e.g., Olariu and Bhatta-

charya, 2006).

A set of stratal slices was constructed in the intervalbetween reference events T1 and T2 from stacked andmigrated data (Figure7a). All the stratal slices roughlyfollow individual seismic events that are parallel to

one another. Selected slices (Figure 10a, 10c, and10e) represent three thin LST deltaic depositional sys-tems in high-order sequences. The most striking seismic

geomorphologic features in these stratal slices are nu-merous channel patterns and associated amplitude

anomalies of different shapes, representing variousdeltaic environments (Figure 10b, 10d, and 10f).Differences in the facies patterns reflect relative mar-

gin-to-basin positions in the gentle slope of a postriftlacustrine basin. During deposition of the high-

frequency sequence SS2 (Figure10aand10b), the lakewas at its maximum depth and extent and the studyarea was a delta front. Distributary channels extendedfar into the basin and were rarely exposed before burial.

A fringing sandy delta front was lacking. Later, duringdeposition of the high-frequency sequences G41(Figure 10c and 10d) and G31 (Figure 10e and 10f),

the lake diminished in area after repeated deltaic-

deposition episodes. The study area is located in theshoreline area, which has a narrower delta-front zone.The deltaic system prograded on a smaller scale, withdeltaic lobes forming one in front of another, attached

to shorter distributary channels, which terminated atthe shoreline at the time of deposition. Multiple shore-line positions can be determined on the basis of channelterminations (Figure10c and 10d) or amplitude zoning

(Figure 10e and 10f), showing a general direction ofdeltaic progradation.

Miocene deltas at the Gulf of Mexico,Louisiana, United States

Starfak and Tiger Shoal fields of offshore Louisiana,United States (Figure11), lie along the western periph-

ery of the ancestral Mississippi River area. Located inthe Oligocene-Miocene Detachment Province of thenorth Gulf Coast continental margin (Diegel et al.,

1995), Miocene deposits are largely controlled bydown-to-the-basin, listric growth faults that sole on aregional detachment zone above the Oligocene section.Salt tectonics and growth faulting resulted in a great

thickness of deltaic and other on-shelf sediments duringa period of high sedimentation rates. Interpreted depo-

sitional environments include lowstand progradingwedge, slope fan, and basin-floor fan beyond the shelfedge; incised valley, highstand delta, and transgressive

facies; and coastal plain, coastal delta, and inner-shelfmarine deposits in the coastal area (Hentz and Zeng,

2003).All these Miocene depositional systems are com-

posed of interbedded sandstone and shale units, withsandstones varying widely in thickness and ranging

from 1 to 40 m. Although the study area is situatedin a passive continental margin, a representative dipseismic section across the area (Figure 12) demon-strates mostly parallel to divergent seismic facies,

TEXAS

LOUISIANA

MISSISSIPPI

3D surveysField

N

VERMILIONAREA

SOUTH MARSHISLAND AREA

North LightHouse Point

TigerShoal

Starfak C

LOUISIANA

MARSH ISLAND

C'

A

A'

0

0

5 mi

8 km

B

B'

LightHousePoint

Trinity Shoal

Amber Complex

Mound Point

Fig. 13

QAe1686

Figure 11. Location of Starfak and Tiger Shoal fields, 3Dseismic surveys, and wells in the Louisiana Gulf Coast.



9/17

lacking large-scale clinoform configurations. Most

of the study interval was deposited on the on-shelf

area. In particular, most of the thin, on-shelf deltaic

sediments are interbedded with incised valley fills

(IVFs), without displaying shingled clinoforms that

are representative of shallow-water deltas (Figure4d).

With a predominant frequency of around 35 Hz, it is

understandable that the seismic data are not able to

image clinoform complexes from deltas thinner than

a calculated Hmin of 43 m (with 3000 ms velocity).A strike seismic profile (Figure 12b) demonstrates

similar parallel to subparallel reflection events with

variable amplitude and continuity, without any indica-

tion of mounded facies (Figure 3b).

An amplitude stratal slice (Figure 13a) that sam-

ples one of the parallel and variable amplitude events

(Figure 12) reveals multiple channel forms and asso-

ciated amplitude anomalies of varying shapes, which

can be referred to as distributary channels and delta

lobes. Upward-coarsening wireline-log patterns in one

of the lobes indicate the sandy and prograding

character of the 30- to 35-m-thick delta system(Figure 13b). Because of the digitate shape of the an-

cient landform, it is interpreted as a fluvial-dominated

delta having limited wave modification. This delta sys-

tem is so big that it obviously exceeds the 350-mi2

study area.

Miocene Oakville deltas at the Gulf of Mexico,Texas, United States

In a 3D seismic survey in the Corpus Christi Bay area

of south Texas (Figure 14), the Miocene Oakville For-

mation is bounded below by the upper OligoceneAnahuac Formation. Sediments of the Oakville interval

form one of many thick offlapping wedges of terrig-

enous sediment that were deposited in the deep Gulf

of Mexico Basin during the late Tertiary (Brown

and Loucks, 2009). Oakville strata make up part of a

second-order regressive sequence of interbedded sand-

stones and shales that followed a basinwide second-

order transgression represented by the Oligocene

Anahuac Formation (Brown and Loucks, 2009).

Dip (Figure15a) and strike (Figure15b) seismic sec-

tions across the study area demonstrate a mostly

parallel seismic configuration in the Oakville interval,which is the on-shelf portion of the thick Oakville off-

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2600

2800

Basinwarda)

b) 2000

2200

2400

2600

Traveltime(ms)

B B'

Amplitude

+2 km0

0 2 mi 14

Fault IVF at high-freq sequence

A A'

Traveltime(ms)

QAe1695

Figure 12. Seismic sections in Starfak andTiger Shoal area showing the lack of clino-forms in Miocene on-shelf deltaic sediments.Dashed lines refer to position of the stratalslice in Figure13. (a) Northsouth dip section

A-A (modified from Zeng and Hentz, 2004).(b) Westeast strike section B-B. SeeFigure 11 for position.



10/17

lapping wedge. The dominantly deltaic and shore-zone

sediments exhibit a different depositional style from

that in the offshore Louisiana study area (Figure 11),

where a primary deltaic depocenter existed during the

Miocene. Instead, multiple small streams transported

enormous volumes of locally derived sediments across

the coastal plain of Texas (Galloway, 1986; Galloway

et al., 2000). Galloway et al. (2000) and Loucks et al.

(2011) find the older Oligocene shelf edge to be 20 to

25 mi seaward (downdip) of the study area.An amplitude stratal slice made inside the Oakville

Formation (Figure16) illustrates a unique channel-lobe

system that resembles some elongate branches of the

modern Mississippi delta (e.g., Figure 2) in geometry

and in size, except for its inner-shelf location. At least

eight mouth-bar lobes are seen attached to a sinuous

distributary-channel system. Wireline log patterns in

wells show that channel-filled sandstones do not ex-

ceed 10 m at this interval, falling below seismic resolu-

tion. Outside the channels and in between delta lobes,

shaly sediments dominate. No seismic clinoforms are

observed along the depositional surface representedby the stratal slice (Figure 16), an indication of a

shallow-water origin of the deltaic system. The thick-

ness of the delta complex should not exceed the calcu-

latedHmin, or 33 m, based on a predominant frequencyof the seismic data of 35 Hz and a formation velocityof2300 ms.

Frequency control on clinoform seismicstratigraphy

A detailed outcrop-based acoustic impedance (AI)model (Figure 17a) of the Abo carbonate sequence

at Apache Canyon, Sierra Diablo, west Texas(Courme, 1999) provides a realistic stratigraphic andfacies reference to study factors that control thetransition between seismic clinoforms and non-clinoforms of a prograding carbonate depositionalsystem. The modeled high-frequency sequence is com-

posed of multiple interbedded, high-AI mudstone/packstone and low-AI grainstone clinoforms, dippingat 1020 (average 15). Measured beds or bed setsrange in thickness from 3 to 10 m (landward) to 20to 60 m (basinward). The clinoforms can be character-ized as oblique (Figure4b) because of the gradually re-duced slope downdip and a bypassed or slightly eroded

toplap surface beneath a thin, irregular paleokarst sys-tem. The whole Abo clinoform complex is encased inflat-lying host carbonate units (Wolfcamp and ClearFork). Judging from the geometry of component beds

SB 4

Third-order

Fourth-order

Fourth-order

SYSTEMS TRACT

UpperMiocene SB 3

W2North

C C

SouthW17 W9 W14 W8 W4

GR SP ILD GR SP SPILD GR ILD ILD

MFS 4

SPGR ILDSPGR ILDSPGR

200

0 0

60ft m

DATUM

Highland (HST)

Lowstand (incised valley) (LST)

Transgressive (TST)

Maximum flooding surfaceSequence boundaryMaximum flooding surfaceTransgressive surfaceSequence boundary

MFS 4

SB 4

QAe1701

a)

b)

2 km

Direction ofprogradation

B 4

Third-rder

Fourth-or er

ourt -or er

SYSTEMS TRACT

UpperMiocene B

W2Nort

C C

outhW1 W9 W14 W8 W4

S IL SIL IL IL

MFS 4

SG ILG ILSPR

00 0m

ighland (H T)

owstand (incised val ey) (L T

ransgressive (TST

aximum flooding surfaceSequence boundaryMaximum flooding surface

ransgress ve sur aceSequence oun ary

MFS 4

SB 4

Ae1701

)

)

2 km


Channel/lobe

- +

Amplitude

Fault

Figure 13. A nonclinoform, highstand on-shelf delta in a high-frequency sequence inStarfak and Tiger Shoal seismic surveys(modified fromHentz and Zeng, 2003). (a) Arepresentative amplitude stratal slice illustrat-ing multiple channel forms and associatedamplitude anomalies of varying shapes in an

on-shelf shallow-water delta. (b) Well sectionC-C showing high-frequency sequence corre-lation and stratal position of the stratal slice(modified fromHentz and Zeng, 2003). Referto Figure 11 for the positions of the stratalslice and the well section.



11/17

and the stacking pattern of the clinoforms, the imped-

ance layering of this system is comparable to that of a

deltaic system at a similar scale.

A set of synthetic seismic models (Figure 17b17f)

constructed from the AI model (Figure 17a) illustrate

how this clinoform complex responds to Ricker wave-

lets of different predominant frequencies. The 300-Hz

model (Figure 17b) has more than enough resolution

to resolve all modeled clinoform beds or bed sets. As

a result, the seismic clinoform configuration is an accu-rate duplication of a geologic clinoform complex. In the

200-Hz model (Figure 17c), resolution is still good

enough to resolve most of the clinoforms, but clinoform

images start to blur in the thinnest beds and the thinnest

parts of the clinoform complex (e.g., box a in Figure 17c).

A further reduction of the predominant frequency to

100 Hz (Figure17d) results in the disappearance of seis-

mic clinoforms in some segments of the complex (e.g.,

box a, part of box b). In the 75-Hz model (Figure 17e),

the seismic clinoforms are gone except in the thickest

part of the clinoform complex (box c). Finally, seismic

clinoforms disappear altogether in the 50-Hz model(Figure17f); instead, we see a mostly flat event having

variable amplitude and continuity.

A more quantitative analysis suggests that the first

occurrence of seismic clinoforms in this set of seismic

models is closely related to Hmin (equations1and2). A

thinner clinoform complex needs data of higher

predominant frequency to image. The clinoform com-

plex shown in box a (Figure 17a) is about 1520 m

(57 ms) thick, which requires seismic data of 150

200 Hz to image (box a in Figure17c). For a clinoform

complex of 30 m (10 ms), 100-Hz data are barely

adequate to show recognizable seismic clinoforms

(box b in Figure17d). If a clinoform complex is 45 m(15 ms) thick, it will show up in a 75-Hz section (box c

in Figure 17e).

It seems that the type of seismic clinoform configu-

ration may also be related to data frequency. An oblique

clinoform seismic configuration in higher frequency

data (e.g., 300-Hz section, Figure17b) tends to become

a shingled configuration in the lower frequency data

(e.g., box b in Figure 17d, box c in Figure 17e). As a

result, shingled facies observed in seismic data are

not necessarily truly representative of geologic clino-

form architecture. The merging of seismic responses

of the thinner, low-angle downdip portion of clinoforms

with that from underlying flat host rocks in low-frequency data appears to distort the seismic facies.

Biddle et al. (1992)document in their outcrop modeling

study that the seismic downlap surfaces do not corre-

spond to discrete stratal surfaces but to the toe-of-slope

position where major bedding units thin below seismic

resolution. Likewise, seismic sigmoidal clinoforms may

be distorted by seismic toplaps corresponding to lithof-

acies changes in sigmoidal geologic units. Readers are

referred toZeng and Kerans (2003, Figure 1) for a field-

data example.

Reducing ambiguity of seismic interpretationSeismic nonclinoforms of prograding depositional

systems pose a challenge to exploration and produc-

tion geologists using seismic data. The lack of a

recognizable clinoform configuration may lead to

misinterpretation of a prograding system as a different

facies. For example, without well data and stratal slice

mapping, the subparallel, variable-amplitude reflections

that correlated with shallow-water deltas in Figures 7,

12, and 15 could easily be misinterpreted as flood-plain, shore-zone, or shallow-water lake/shallow-water

marine facies; the nonclinoform reflection in low-

frequency seismic models of a shelf-edge carbonate

clinoform complex (e.g., Figure 17f) could mistakenly

be interpreted as flat inner-shelf mudstones. This ambi-

guity in seismic interpretation may have significant con-

sequences. the most serious misinterpretation would be

to drill a shallow-water delta play on the basis of a false

impression about the continuity of shingled reservoirs

that actually pinch out at multiple toplap points. A sim-

ulation model based on flat and continuous reservoir

bedding instead of clinoforms would further hinderdevelopment of remaining hydrocarbons in hetero-

geneous reservoirs.

B

B'A

A'

Laguna Madre

Padre IslandMustang

Island

PortlandCorpus Christi

NuecesBay

N

TEXAS

Port Aransas

G u l f o f M e x i c o

C o r pu s

C h r is t i B

a y

Redfish Bay

AransasPass

10 km0

QAe1700

Figure 14. Corpus Christi Bay area in south Texas and loca-tion of 3D seismic survey used in the study.



12/17

The ultimate solution to these problems is to pro-mote acquisition of high-resolution seismic data. Based

on equation 2 and Table 1, in a data set of 200-Hz

predominant frequency Hmin will reduce to 5 m (for

2000 m/s clastic rocks) to 15 m (for 6000 m/s carbonate

rocks), which would greatly enhance our ability to

visually interpret thin-bedded seismic clinoforms.

Some new technologies in high-resolution acquisition

have been developed in recent years. Among them, Q

technology (Goto et al., 2004) and high-density 3Dtechnology (Ramsden et al., 2005) have probably met

with the most success.Where the current high cost of acquisition of high-

resolution seismic data may not be suitable, a high-

frequency enhancement processing of available seismic

data would help. Spectral balancing (Tufekcic et al.,

1981), spectral decomposition (Partyka et al., 1999),

inverse spectral decomposition (Portniaguine and

Castagna, 2004), and wavelet transform (e.g., Smithet al., 2008; Devi and Schwab, 2009) are some of the

most useful methods. Figure 18 shows an example inthe Abo Kingdom carbonate field of west Texas of using

the spectral balancing method to increase the pre-

dominant frequency of data for better clinoform imag-

ing. The original stacked and migrated seismic data

(Figure 18a) are characterized by a frequency range

of 10 to 70 Hz and a predominant frequency of

30 Hz. Some toplaps are seen terminated against a non-

clinoform, flat reflection of strong amplitude. Following

a spectral balancing process (Figure18b), the predomi-nant frequency of the data increases to 45 Hz, resulting

in a breakup of the flat event in the original data (Fig-

ure 18a) into several clinoforms. It appears that these

newly imaged clinoforms are part of a large sigmoidal

clinoform complex that lacks an inside toplap surface.However, the process of high-frequency enhance-

ment inevitably lowers the signal-to-noise ratio of the

data and therefore has its limit. Caution should be

taken not to artificially push the predominant fre-quency beyond the bandwidth of the data. For many

- +

Amplitude

a)

b)

Basinward

1 km

Fault

Anahuacnahuac

Friorio

Oakvilleakville

A

B B'

B'

QAe1696

Anahuacnahuac

Friorio

Oakvilleakville

Traveltim

e(ms)

Traveltime(ms)

1000

1500

2000

1000

Figure 15. Seismic sections in the CorpusChristi area showing the lack of clinoformsin Miocene Oakville on-shelf deltaic sedi-ments. Dashed lines refer to position of thestratal slice in Figure 16. (a) Dip section

A-A. (b) Strike section B-B. Refer to Figure 14for position.



13/17

areas where only low-frequency data are available or

the clinoform complexes are too thin (e.g., the

shallow-water deltas investigated in this paper),

an integrated approach that combines the use of

core, wireline logs, production data, and seismic

geomorphology should be adapted. Unique landforms

on seismic stratal slices that are representative of vari-

ous deltaic systems can alert interpreters to the pos-

sible existence of shingled reservoir architecture in

the form of nonclinoform reflections. Multiple longterminal distributary-channel forms (Figure 10a),

stepwise termination of distributary-channel forms

(Figure 10b), amplitude zoning (Figure 10c), and dig-

itate (Figure13a) and elongate (Figure16) areal geom-

etries are good examples of indicators of the presence

of thin, below-seismic-resolution deltas. For detailed

reservoir prediction and characterization, seismic lith-

ology should also be investigated so that a 3D seismic

volume can first be converted into a log lithology vol-

ume. In a lithology volume, lithology logs (e.g., gamma-

ray and spontaneous potential) at well locations are

tied to nearby seismic traces within a small tolerance,ensuring the best possible well integration with seis-

mic data at the reservoir level. Using seismic geomor-

phology, researchers can convert seismic data further

into depositional facies images with lithologic identifi-

cation. Such an approach is called seismic sedimentol-

ogy (Zeng and Hentz, 2004).

QAe1697

SP/Reslogs

Channel/lobe


WellFault

N

Amplitude500 m

- +

Figure 16. A representative amplitude stratal slice revealinga nonclinoform, on-shelf delta in the Miocene Oakville Forma-tion in the Corpus Christi seismic survey.

QAe1698

ba

c

AboboWolfcamplfcampClear Forklear Fork

a)AI

b)300 Hz

f) 50 Hze)

75 Hz

d)100 Hz

c)200 Hz

Hmin

Hmin Hmin

Hmin Hmin

ba

c

AboboWolfcamplfcampClear Forklear Fork

ba

cba

cba

c

ba

cba

cba

c ba

cba

cba

c

Figure 17. An AI model of the Abo carbonateclinoform complex at Apache Canyon, SierraDiablo, west Texas (Courme, 1999), and itssynthetic seismic responses with Ricker wave-lets of various frequencies. For better com-

parison with field data, the predominantfrequency is used in modeling, which is equalto 1.3 times the peak frequency for Rickerwavelet. Clinoform detection limits are calcu-lated from equation 1. Boxes a, b,and c denoterelatively thin, moderate, and thick clinoformcomplexes in the model, respectively.



14/17


15/17

platform, Picco di Vallandro, the Dolomites, Northern

Italy: AAPG Bulletin, 76, 1430.

Brown, L. F., Jr., and R. G. Loucks, 2009, Chronostratigra-

phy of Cenozoic depositional sequences and systems

tracts: A Wheeler chart of the northwest margin of

the Gulf of Mexico Basin: The University of Texas at

Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Report of Inves-

tigations 273.

Busch, D. A., 1959, Prospecting for stratigraphic traps:

AAPG Bulletin, 43, 28292843.

Busch, D. A., 1971, Genetic units in delta prospecting:

AAPG Bulletin, 55, 11371154.

Carvajal, C., and R. J. Steel, 2009, Shelf-edge architecture

and bypass of sand to deep water; influence of shelf-

edge processes, sea level, and sediment supply: Journal

of Sedimentary Research, 79, 652672, doi: 10.2110/jsr

.2009.074.

Cleaves, A. W., and M. C. Broussard, 1980, Chester and

Pottsville depositional systems, outcrop and subsur-

face, in the Black Warrior Basin of Mississippi and Ala-

bama: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies

Transactions, 30, 4960.Courme, B., 1999, Forward seismic modeling of a shelf-to-

slope carbonate depositional setting from outcrop data,

the Abo Formation of Apache Canyon, West Texas, and

comparison to its subsurface equivalent, Kingdom Abo

field, Midland Basin: M.S. thesis, The University of

Texas at Austin, p. 200.

Covault, J. A., B. W. Romans, and S. A. Graham, 2009, Out-

crop expression of a continental-margin-scale shelf-

edge delta from the Cretaceous Magallanes Basin,

Chile: Journal of Sedimentary Research, 79, 523539,

doi: 10.2110/jsr.2009.053.

Devi, K. R. S., and H. Schwab, 2009, High-resolution seis-mic signals from band-limited data using scaling laws of

wavelet transforms: Geophysics, 74, no. 2, WA143

WA152, doi: 10.1190/1.3077622.

Diegel, F. A., J. F. Karlo, D. C. Schuster, R. C. Shoup, and

P. R. Tauvers, 1995, Cenozoic structural evolution and

tectonostratigraphic framework of the northern Gulf

Coast continental margin, in M. P. A. Jackson, D. G.

Roberts, and S. Snelson, eds., Salt tectonics: A global

perspective: AAPG Memoir 65, 109151.

Dixon, J. F., J. F. Dixon, R. J. Steel, and C. Olariu, 2012,

River-dominated, shelf-edge deltas; delivery of sand

across the shelf break in the absence of slope incision:

Sedimentology, 59, 11331157, doi:10.1111/j.1365-3091

.2011.01298.x.

Droste, H., and M. V. Steenwinkel, 2004, Stratal geometries

and patterns of platform carbonates: The Cretaceous of

Oman, in G. P. Eberli, J. L. Masaferro, and J. F. Sarg,

eds., Seismic imaging of carbonate reservoirs and sys-

tems: AAPG Memoir 81, 185206.

Eberli, G. P., F. S. Anselmetti, C. Betzler, and J. V.

Konijnenburg, 2004, Daniel Bernoulli carbonate plat-

form to basin transitions on seismic data and in

outcrops: Great Bahama Bank and the Maiella platform

margin, Italy, in G. P. Eberli, J. L. Masaferro, and

J. F. Sarg, eds., Seismic imaging of carbonate reservoirs

and systems: AAPG Memoir 81, 207250.

Ethridge, F. G., and W. A. Wescott, 1984, Tectonic setting,

recognition and hydrocarbon reservoir potential of fan-

delta deposits,inE. H. Koster, and R. J. Steel, eds., Sed-

imentology of gravels and conglomerates: Canadian

Society of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 10, 217235.

Feng, Z. Q., C. Z. Jia, X. N. Xie, S. Zhang, Z. H. Feng, and

T. A. Cross, 2010, Tectonostratigraphic units and strati-

graphic sequences of the nonmarine Songliao Basin,

northeast China: Basin Research, 22, 7995, doi: 10

.1111/j.1365-2117.2009.00445.x.

Fisher, W. L., L. F. Brown, Jr., A. J. Scott, and J. H.

McGowen, 1969, Delta systems in the exploration for

oil and gas A research colloquium: The University

of Texas at Austin.

Galloway, W. E., 1975, Evolution of deltaic systems, in

Deltas, models for exploration: Houston Geological

Society, 8, 789.

Galloway, W. E., 1986, Reservoir facies architecture of mi-crotidal barrier systems: AAPG Bulletin, 70, 787808.

Galloway, W. E., P. E. Ganey-Curry, X. Li, and R. T. Buffler,

2000, Cenozoic depositional history of the Gulf of

Mexico Basin: AAPG Bulletin, 84, 17431774, doi: 10

.1306/8626C37F-173B-11D7-8645000102C1865D.

Galloway, W. E., and D. K. Hobday, 1983, Terrigenous clas-

tic depositional systems: Springer-Verlag, p. 423.

Goto, R., D. Lowden, P. Smith, and J. O. Paulsen, 2004,

Steered-streamer 4D case study over the Norne field:

74th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded

Abstracts, 22272230.

Hentz, T. F., and H. Zeng, 2003, High-frequency Miocenesequence stratigraphy, offshore Louisiana: Cycle frame-

work and influence on production distribution in a ma-

ture shelf province: AAPG Bulletin, 87, 197230, doi:10

.1306/09240201054.

Isern, A. R., F. S. Anselmetti, and P. Blum, 2004, A Neogene

carbonate platform, slope, and shelf edifice shaped by

sea level and ocean currents, Marion Plateau (Northeast

Australia), in G. P. Eberli, J. L. Masaferro, and J. F. Sarg,

eds., Seismic imaging of carbonate reservoirs and sys-

tems: AAPG Memoir 81, 291308.

Li, W., J. P. Bhattacharya, Y. Zhu, D. Garza, and

E. L. Blankenship, 2011, Evaluating delta asymmetry us-

ing three-dimensional facies architecture and ichnologi-

cal analysis, Ferron Notom Delta, Capital Reef, Utah,

USA: Sedimentology, 58, 478507, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-

3091.2010.01172.x.

Lou, Z. H., X. Lan, Q. M. Lu, and X. Y. Cai, 1999, Controls of

the topography, climate and lake level fluctuation on

the depositional environment of a shallow-water delta:

(in Chinese) Acta Geologica Sinica, 73, 8392.

Loucks, R. G., B. T. Moore, and H. Zeng, 2011, On-shelf

lower Miocene Oakville sediment-dispersal patterns

http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2009.074http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2009.074http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2009.053http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.3077622http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2011.01298.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2011.01298.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2117.2009.00445.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2117.2009.00445.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1306/8626C37F-173B-11D7-8645000102C1865Dhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1306/8626C37F-173B-11D7-8645000102C1865Dhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1306/09240201054http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/09240201054http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2010.01172.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2010.01172.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2010.01172.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2010.01172.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2010.01172.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2010.01172.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2010.01172.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2010.01172.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2010.01172.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1306/09240201054http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/09240201054http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/8626C37F-173B-11D7-8645000102C1865Dhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1306/8626C37F-173B-11D7-8645000102C1865Dhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2117.2009.00445.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2117.2009.00445.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2117.2009.00445.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2117.2009.00445.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2117.2009.00445.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2117.2009.00445.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2011.01298.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2011.01298.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2011.01298.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2011.01298.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2011.01298.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2011.01298.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.3077622http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.3077622http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.3077622http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2009.053http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2009.053http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2009.053http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2009.053http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2009.074http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2009.074http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2009.074http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2009.074


16/17

within a three-dimensional sequence-stratigraphic ar-

chitectural framework and implications for deep-water

reservoirs in the central coastal area of Texas: AAPG

Bulletin, 95, 17951817.

Mitchum, R. M., Jr., P. R. Vail, and B. Sangree, 1977, Seis-

mic stratigraphy and global change of sea level. Part 6:

Stratigraphic interpretation of seismic reflection pat-

terns in depositional sequences, in C. E. Payton, ed.,

Seismic stratigraphy: AAPG Memoir 26, 117134.

Olariu, C., and J. P. Bhattacharya, 2006, Terminal dis-

tributary channels and delta front architecture of

river-dominated delta systems: Journal of Sedimentary

Research, 76, 212233, doi: 10.2110/jsr.2006.026.

Olariu, M. I., C. R. Carvajal, C. Olariu, and R. J. Steel, 2012,

Deltaic process and architectural evolution during

cross-shelf transits, Maastrichtian Fox Hills Formation,

Washakie Basin, Wyoming: AAPG Bulletin, 96, 1931

1956, doi: 10.1306/03261211119.

Partyka, G., J. Gridley, and J. Lopez, 1999, Interpretational

application of spectral decomposition in reservoir char-

acterization: The Leading Edge, 18, 353360, doi: 10

.1190/1.1438295.Portniaguine, O., and J. P. Castagna, 2004, Inverse spectral

decomposition: 74th Annual International Meeting,

SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 17861789.

Postma, G., 1990, An analysis of the variation in delta ar-

chitecture: Terra Nova, 2, 124130, doi:10.1111/j.1365-

3121.1990.tb00052.x.

Ramsden, C., G. Bennett, and A. Long, 2005, High resolu-

tion 3D seismic imaging in practice: The Leading Edge,

24, 423428, doi: 10.1190/1.1901397.

Rasmussen, D. L., C. J. Jump, and K. A. Wallace, 1985, Del-

taic systems in the Early, Cretaceous Fall River Forma-

tion, southern Powder River Basin, Wyoming: WyomingGeological Association, 36, 91111.

Rich, J. L., 1951, Three critical environments of deposition,

and criteria for recognition of rocks deposited in

each of them: Geological Society of America Bulletin,

62, 120, doi: 10.1130/0016-7606(1951)62[1:TCEODA]2

.0.CO;2.

Sangree, J. B., and J. M. Widmier, 1977, Seismic stratigra-

phy and global changes of sea level. Part 9: Seismic inter-

pretation of clastic depositional facies, in C. E. Payton,

ed., Seismic stratigraphy: AAPG Memoir 26, 165184.

Smith, M., G. Perry, A. Bertrand, J. Stein, and G. Yu, 2008,

Extending seismic bandwidth using the continuous

wavelet transform: First Break, 26, 97102.Tufekcic, D., J. F. Claerbout, and Z. Rasperic, 1981, Spec-

tral balancing in the time domain: Geophysics, 46,

11821188, doi: 10.1190/1.1441258.

Vail, P. R., R. M. Mitchum, Jr., and S. Thompson III, 1977,

Relative change of sea level from coastal onlap. Part 3:

Stratigraphic interpretation of seismic reflection pat-

terns in depositional sequences, in C. E. Payton, ed.,

Seismic stratigraphy: AAPG Memoir 26, 6382.

Van Wagoner, J. C., H. W. Posamentier, R. M. Mitchum,

P. R. Vail, J. F. Sarg, T. S. Loutit, and J. Hardenbol,

1988, An overview of the fundamentals of sequence

stratigraphy and key definitions, in C. K. Wilgus, B.

S. Hastings, H. Posamentier, J. V. Wagoner, C. A. Ross,

and C. Kendall, eds., Sea-level changes: An integrated

approach: SEPM, Special publication no. 42, 12711288.

Zeng, H., M. M. Backus, K. T. Barrow, and N. Tyler, 1998a,

Stratal slicing. Part I: Realistic 3-D seismic model: Geo-

physics, 63, 502513, doi: 10.1190/1.1444351.

Zeng, H., S. C. Henry, and J. P. Riola, 1998b, Stratal slicing.

Part II: Real seismic data: Geophysics,63, 514522, doi:

10.1190/1.1444352.

Zeng, H., and T. F. Hentz, 2004, High-frequency sequence

stratigraphy from seismic sedimentology: Applied to

Miocene, Vermilion Block 50, Tiger Shoal area, offshore

Louisiana: AAPG Bulletin, 88, 153174, doi: 10.1306/

10060303018.

Zeng, H., and C. Kerans, 2003, Seismic frequency control

on carbonate seismic stratigraphy: A case study of

the Kingdom Abo sequence, West Texas: AAPG Bulle-

tin, 87, 273293, doi:10.1306/08270201023.

Zeng, H., X. Zhu, R. Zhu, and Q. Zhang, 2012, Guidelines for

seismic sedimentologic study in non-marine postrift ba-sins: (in Chinese) Petroleum Exploration and Develop-

ment, 39, 275284, doi:10.1016/S1876-3804(12)60045-7.

Zou, C. N., W. Z. Zhao, X. Y. Zhang, P. Luo, L. Wang, L. H.

Liu, S. H. Xue, X. J. Yuan, R. K. Zhu, and S. H. Tao, 2008,

Formation and distribution of shallow-water deltas and

central-basin sandbodies in large open depression lake

basins: (in Chinese) Acta Geologica Sinica, 82, 813825.

Hongliu Zeng received a B.S. (1982)

and an M.S. (1985) in geology from

the Petroleum University of China anda Ph.D. (1994) in geophysics from the

University of Texas at Austin. He is a

senior research scientist for the Bureau

of Economic Geology, Jackson School

of Geosciences, The University of Texas

at Austin. His research interests include seismic sedimentol-

ogy, seismic interpretation, and attribute analysis. He won the

Pratt Memorial Award from AAPG in 2005.

Xiaomin Zhureceived B.S. (1982), M.S.

(1985), and Ph.D. (1990) degrees in

petroleum geology from the Petroleum

University of China. He is a professor

in the College of Geosciences, China

University of Petroleum at Beijing,

China. His research interests include

lacustrine sedimentology, sequence

stratigraphy, and seismic sedimentology. He won the Li

Siguang Award from the foundation of Li Siguang geological

scientific award in 2009.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2006.026http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/03261211119http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1438295http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1438295http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3121.1990.tb00052.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3121.1990.tb00052.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1901397http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1951)62[1:TCEODA]2.0.CO;2http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1951)62[1:TCEODA]2.0.CO;2http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1441258http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1444351http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1444352http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/10060303018http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/10060303018http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/08270201023http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1876-3804(12)60045-7http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1876-3804(12)60045-7http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1876-3804(12)60045-7http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/08270201023http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/08270201023http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/10060303018http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/10060303018http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/10060303018http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1444352http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1444352http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1444352http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1444351http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1444351http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1444351http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1441258http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1441258http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1441258http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1951)62[1:TCEODA]2.0.CO;2http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1951)62[1:TCEODA]2.0.CO;2http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1951)62[1:TCEODA]2.0.CO;2http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1951)62[1:TCEODA]2.0.CO;2http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1901397http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1901397http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1901397http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3121.1990.tb00052.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3121.1990.tb00052.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3121.1990.tb00052.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3121.1990.tb00052.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3121.1990.tb00052.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3121.1990.tb00052.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3121.1990.tb00052.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1438295http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1438295http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1438295http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/03261211119http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/03261211119http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2006.026http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2006.026http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2006.026http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2006.026


17/17

Rukai Zhu received a B.S. (1988) in

geology from Hunan University of Sci-

ence and Technology, an M.S. (1991) in

geology from China University of Geo-

sciences, and a Ph.D. (1994) in geology

from Peking University. He is a senior

geologist for the Research Institute of

Petroleum Exploration & Development

PetroChina. His research interests include sedimentology,

reservoir characterization, and unconventional petroleum

geology.


New Insights Into Seis Stratigraph

Documents

Transcript of New Insights Into Seis Stratigraph